Legal Opinion

Hill v. Ofalt

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 5, 2014PublishedCited by 96 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

OLSON, J.:

Appellant, Thomas Hill, appeals from the order entered on July 13, 2012 that sustained preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, which were filed by Ronald J. Ofalt, Sr. and Ronald J. Ofalt, Jr. (hereinafter collectively “Appellees” or “the Ofalts”). The order also dismissed Appellant’s complaint. We vacate in part and remand.

Since the current lawsuit was dismissed in response to preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, we base the following factual recitation upon the well-pleaded facts contained within Appellant’s complaint. See Burgoyne v. Pinecrest…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin, & Jenrette, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2004
  2. Donahue v. Rodd Electrotype Co. of New England, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
  3. Werner v. ZazycznySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  4. Lugo v. Farmers Pride, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  5. Edward F. BAGDON, Plaintiff-Appellee—Cross-Appellant, v. BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC., Defendant-Appellant—Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by96 opinions

  1. Charlot v. Ecolab, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2015
  2. Morrison Informatics, Inc. v. Members 1st Federal Credit UnionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  3. Lieberman v. Corporacion Experienca Unica, S.A.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2016
  4. Meyer v. Del. Valley Lift Truck, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2019
  5. Khalil, A. v. Cole, B.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020

91 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API